The amarok project includes code that parses metadata/tags for various media
formats, including asf, audiofile(?), mp4, rm, wav. no decoding/demuxing
In particular, this affects a new amarok dependency, recently submitted for
I know I asked spot awhile back(1), but I'd like it reviewed publically...
(esp for the benefit of amarok upstream and other distros considering
(1) My recollection was to (at least) not touch asf with a 10-foot pole.
This is in regards to an attempt to package figlet for Fedora. It
turns out that part of this package is under a non-free license.
Attempts to contact the author of this code have been thus far
unsuccessful, and I'm wondering as to the best way to proceed.
The license currently in place on these files indicate that any changes
to the code needs to be emailed to the original author within 30 days.
Would this cover licensing changes as well? I'm wondering if we could
just change the license on this code, notify the author via the email
address provided and call it good (the author's email address isn't
bouncing, but appears to be inactive).
Another alternative would be to have upstream replace the code with
sufficiently free code, or to remove the functionality completely.
I am also considering patching out the non-free code myself (since
upstream doesn't really have an active maintainer right now as figlet
has been pretty stable for years) and doing the release that way. The
functionality in question is for decompressing font files which we
could easily live without.
Could I get some thoughts on the above from this list?
On 03/06/2009 02:14 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
> I'm a little bit afraid to violate this rule:
> especially "All content is subject to review by FESCo, who has the final
> say on whether or not it can be included." etc.
That just means that FESCo reserves judgement over what is and is not
Learning content like you describe would be permissable in the package
as long as it is not religious or pornographic.
> Would it be necessary to get the content files reviewed in the following
> - src.rpm/tarball contains content under GPL
> - binary rpm does not
Well, we'd still be distributing the content (via the SRPM), so yes,
FESCo would still have oversight.